State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Billy Rhoden, Defendant/Appellant.
Decision date: Unknown
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Billy Rhoden, Defendant/
- Respondent
- State of Missouri, Plaintiff/
Disposition
Affirmed
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Opinion
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Billy Rhoden, Defendant/Appellant. Case Number: 73202 Handdown Date: 09/08/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Hon. Donald E. Dalton Counsel for Appellant: David Simpson Counsel for Respondent: John M. Morris, III Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Simon, P.J., Crane and Mooney, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER Defendant Billy Rhoden appeals from the judgment entered on his conviction by a jury of second degree assault of a law enforcement officer in violation of Section 565.082, RSMo 1994, armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015, RSMo 1994, and resisting arrest in violation of Section 575.150, RSMo Cum. Supp. 1997. The trial court found he was a prior and persistent offender and sentenced him to two concurrent terms of thirty years imprisonment and one consecutive term of ten years imprisonment, for a total of forty years. In his appeal, defendant maintains the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain other crimes evidence. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and the transcript and find no abuse of discretion. State v. Patterson, 847 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Mo. App. 1993). An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Statutes
- RSMo § 565.082cited
Section 565.082, RSMo
- RSMo § 571.015cited
Section 571.015, RSMo
- RSMo § 575.150cited
Section 575.150, RSMo
Rules
- Rule 30.25cited
Rule 30.25
Cases
- state v patterson 847 sw2d 935cited
State v. Patterson, 847 S.W.2d 935
Related Opinions
Other opinions in the same practice area.
Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080
McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782
The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218
James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Elizabeth M. Speer, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113172
The court reversed defendant's convictions for second-degree property damage and fourth-degree assault because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta hearing and failed to ensure a written waiver of counsel was entered prior to trial, as required by Missouri law. Although the defendant did not preserve the issue by objecting at trial, the court found the error must be reviewed because the failure to conduct a proper Faretta hearing is a constitutional violation that cannot be waived.